Can Bitcoin Mining Help Rebuild Ukraine

Mining farms near Ukrainian nuclear power plants could generate funds for reconstruction by purchasing electricity that cannot be delivered to consumers. This idea was proposed by the American Bitcoin Policy Institute, estimating potential revenues of $1 billion over five years. Where can a country with power outages find excess electricity, and why is it suggested to sell it specifically to miners? The answer depends on the state of the networks, the terms of the agreement, and how much money will remain for Ukraine after all expenses.

Why Ukraine Needs Mining Farms Near Nuclear Power Plants

On August 11, an article by Jacob Langenkamp titled "The Role of Bitcoin in Rebuilding Ukraine" was published on the website of the American Bitcoin Policy Institute. The author considers mining as a way to profit from nuclear electricity that cannot be delivered to consumers due to damaged networks. To achieve this, he suggests attracting private companies to install Bitcoin mining equipment near nuclear power plants and purchase energy directly at the production site.

According to Langenkamp's plan, an investor would finance the equipment and its operation, while the Ukrainian producer would receive payment for the electricity. The author proposes using these revenues to service loans for reconstruction. Additional benefits could come from taxes, job creation, and contracts with local contractors, although he does not separately calculate their contribution to the economy. At the same time, Ukraine does not necessarily have to mine Bitcoin or accumulate it in a state reserve to profit from such cooperation.

For Ukrainians experiencing outages due to Russian shelling and electricity shortages, discussions about surplus electricity may sound strange. However, the plant can sometimes produce more than the damaged lines and substations can transmit to consumers. In such cases, its capacity is limited, even if there is a shortage of electricity in another part of the country. A buyer nearby, with proper connections, could utilize part of this potential even before transmission is restored.

Mining is suitable for this role due to the nature of its operations. Specialized computers perform calculations that support the Bitcoin network and receive rewards in cryptocurrency. The farm requires electricity and internet, and its consumption can be quickly reduced as needed by the energy system. This is already being practiced: according to research from the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance, surveyed miners reported a total reduction in consumption of 888 GWh during 2023. At the same time, each shutdown means lost earnings, which the investor will factor into the price offered for electricity.

Selling to such a buyer could potentially be more profitable than exporting if direct connections allow for reduced losses and transmission costs. However, the comparison must be made on the amount that remains for the producer after all expenses, including the setup of connections. A higher price abroad may outweigh the savings from the proximity of the farm. The most compelling advantage of mining arises when it is impossible to transmit energy to another buyer at all, and the miner's payment exceeds the additional costs of its production and delivery. In such a situation, the plant earns income from capacity that would otherwise remain unused.

A Billion in Five Years: How the Author Calculates Benefits for Ukraine

The main advantage of mining in Langenkamp's calculations is the ability to start earning before the large-scale reconstruction is completed. He allocates 6-9 months for launching a container farm, while the purchase of equipment, its installation, and subsequent operation under the proposed scheme would be financed by a private investor. In contrast, restoring high-voltage lines from nuclear power plants to major cities, according to the author, will require 3-5 years and over $10 billion, which Ukraine will have to attract for the reconstruction of the energy system. The author sees this difference as an opportunity to receive initial revenues while other sectors await infrastructure repairs.

The central figure of the study is about $1 billion over five years from electricity sales to miners with a total consumption capacity of 750 MW. On average, this amounts to $200 million per year, which includes payments for electricity, from which the energy company's costs still need to be covered. The article does not provide a financial model: the author refers to calculations from an unnamed mining company. However, his estimate can be translated into more understandable figures, showing how much the result depends on the duration of equipment operation.

|-----------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------| | What we are calculating | Result | | Consumption of a 750 MW farm for a year of continuous operation | 6.57 billion kWh | | Price of electricity at which such operation yields $1 billion over five years | About 3 American cents* per kWh | | Revenue at the same price if the farm operates half the time | About $500 million over five years |

Own calculation based on the author's figures, not accounting for leap years. This is not the tariff published by him and not a forecast of the load of Ukrainian nuclear power plants.

For continuous operation of the farm, the author's forecast corresponds to a price of about 1.37 UAH per kWh at the current exchange rate. For comparison, in September, the average wholesale electricity price in Ukraine was 6.20 UAH per kWh excluding VAT. Thus, under this operating mode, the scenario assumes that miners would purchase electricity at approximately four times cheaper than this market benchmark.

Next, Langenkamp suggests using annual payments from miners to service loans for reconstruction. According to his calculations, $200 million per year would allow servicing a twenty-year loan of about $1.8 billion at 9% or $4 billion interest-free if subsidized by donors. Ukraine could receive funds for construction immediately and repay gradually. However, for this, the corresponding amount must remain available for payments for all twenty years. The revenue estimate for the first five years does not ensure this by itself.

A separate proposal concerns BitBonds, bonds with Bitcoin as part of the collateral. In the scheme presented by the author, for every $100 raised, the state would allocate $90 for ordinary needs and $10 for purchasing cryptocurrency. The bond buyer would receive the right to a portion of the potential increase in its value and, thanks to this, would agree to lower interest rates on the loan. If Ukraine accumulates Bitcoins received as payment for electricity, they could be used as collateral, directing all borrowed funds towards reconstruction. For now, this is a financial concept, for which the article does not provide specific conditions for the Ukrainian issuance or confirmed savings on interest rates.

The most ambitious part of the idea goes beyond lending. Langenkamp proposes to create a state Bitcoin fund, combining the idea of the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund with personal savings accounts for citizens. Its funds could support education and infrastructure, while individual accounts could benefit children, veterans, families of the deceased, and others affected by the war. Thus, the author builds a path from electricity sales to the long-term savings of the country. However, for this last step, he already relies on the increase in Bitcoin's value, without providing calculations of how much the fund could pay out and what would happen in the event of a price drop.

What Could Hinder Bitcoin Reconstruction

Although the calculations sound quite optimistic, there are many "buts" in such a reconstruction strategy. The most obvious risk is related to BTC itself, which can not only increase in value but also sharply lose its price. For a miner, this would mean lower earnings, and for a state fund with cryptocurrency on its balance sheet, it would mean devaluation of savings. However, even an increase in the rate does not guarantee success.

Electricity may not be available when and as much as needed

The article lacks data confirming the possibility of supplying miners with exactly 750 MW for years. The available energy volumes will fluctuate due to reactor repairs, network conditions, seasonal demand, and new shelling. Moreover, a damaged substation can create a significantly more serious problem than the inability to sell electricity. Substations also provide external power for the cooling and safety systems of nuclear power plants. A nearby farm does not eliminate these risks and does not guarantee that the station will be able to increase production.

There is also a contradiction between the needs of the energy system and the investor. Ukraine benefits from a consumer that can be disconnected as soon as electricity is needed elsewhere. A miner needs sufficient operating time to recoup investments. If downtime is frequent, they may demand an even lower price or compensation. After the network is restored, a long-term contract for cheap electricity can limit the ability to sell it at a higher price. Therefore, the right to disconnect the farm, review prices, and change supply volumes should be part of the agreements from the start.

Cheap Electricity Does Not Guarantee Profitable Mining

According to research from the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance, electricity accounts for over 80% of the cash operating expenses of surveyed miners. However, equipment also needs to be purchased, cooled, serviced, and gradually upgraded. At the same time, companies compete with miners worldwide. If the total computational power of the network increases, the same farm receives a smaller share of the rewards under equal conditions. Approximately every four years, the BTC protocol also halves the reward in new coins.

In Ukraine, there are additional risks of equipment damage, protection costs, and possible insurance. A private investor may take these on but will factor them into their electricity price and supply guarantees. Therefore, their willingness to finance construction does not mean that the state will receive a beneficial contract. If mining becomes unprofitable and the company ceases operations, the payments that the author suggests relying on to repay loans will also disappear.

Rules for the Crypto Market Are Still Not Finalized

As of October 10, 2026, draft law No. 10225-d on the taxation and regulation of virtual assets is still being prepared for a second reading. It was adopted in principle in September 2025, but a final decision is still pending. This does not mean that any cryptocurrency activity is prohibited in Ukraine. However, an investor planning to operate for many years currently lacks definitively established special rules that will determine their taxes and expenses.

For the energy company, selling electricity for hryvnias and receiving payment in Bitcoin also has different implications. The second option requires regulation of accounting, storage, asset exchange, and liability for losses. Transitioning from such settlements to government bonds backed by cryptocurrency is even more complicated. The mere adoption of a law on the crypto market is not enough for all the financial instruments proposed by the author to automatically come into effect.

A Billion in Revenue Does Not Equal a Billion for Reconstruction

In Langenkamp's model, payments for electricity quickly transform into a resource for state projects. In the Ukrainian energy sector, this path is more complicated. The producer must pay for fuel, repairs, personnel, and security, and Energoatom also finances the mechanism to maintain affordable prices for the population. According to the company, these payments amounted to nearly 154 billion UAH from January to August 2026. Therefore, to assess the contribution of mining to reconstruction, it is necessary to calculate the funds that will remain after expenses and obligations and determine how they will enter the budget.

The proposed Bitcoin fund also requires a separate management system. Who will store the assets, when will they be allowed to sell them, who will determine the payouts to citizens and be responsible for losses? An open blockchain allows for the visibility of transfers, but it does not, by itself, ensure a fair selection of contractors or a just distribution of funds. Moreover, the same revenues cannot be fully directed at repaying loans, accumulating BTC, and social payments simultaneously. Choices will have to be made between these goals.

Nuclear Energy Does Not Eliminate Environmental Costs

Using nuclear electricity reduces the carbon footprint of mining compared to powering from coal plants. However, there remain issues of equipment production and replacement, electronic waste, noise, and the need for cooling. Cambridge researchers separately consider the disposal and reuse of mining devices. For Ukraine, it is also important what kind of electricity the farm will consume. If it allows for the use of truly unused capacity from nuclear power plants, that is one scenario. If, however, its operation forces other consumers to generate electricity from gas or coal, the environmental outcome will be different.

Under What Conditions Mining Can Help Reconstruction

Despite all the warnings, for Ukraine, this idea makes sense if the emergence of miners provides energy companies with additional income and does not limit supply to the population and businesses. This should be verified on a specific project where available electricity, connection costs, and the amount remaining after fulfilling all obligations can be calculated.

The amount of money that remains in the Ukrainian economy also matters. Imported equipment will ensure the operation of the farm, but local salaries, taxes, and orders to Ukrainian contractors will provide an additional effect for reconstruction. These indicators will allow for an assessment of what the country will gain from the new business, besides being a buyer of electricity.

A smart start could be a pilot project with private funding and independent evaluation of results. It would show whether the investor is willing to work at a price acceptable to Ukraine and stop the equipment at the request of the energy system. Generalized results could be published without disclosing sensitive data about energy facilities, and decisions on expansion could be made based on actual revenues and expenses.

And although the projected billion dollars over five years would be a significant additional revenue, against the backdrop of the $588 billion recovery needs over a decade, its role will remain limited, especially after deducting costs. Mining can help finance specific projects. However, whether it will be beneficial for Ukraine will depend on the conditions under which it sells electricity and how it manages the earnings.